Rottentomatoes.com

BAZM8

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/

I presume i'm preaching to the choir here but there maybe some out there who haven't heard of this site.

They review movies DVDs, Games etc. but rather than getting an individual critic to review them they take reviews from numerous and varied sources and coallate them to get an average rating from 1-100%. I've found it pretty accurate with My taste, i.e. Pan's Labyrinth 95%, catwoman 9%... check it out with your own taste.

It's handy to check before going to xtravision or wherever if you don't konw what you want and you haven't heard of anything that is available?

For example was considering getting "All the kings Men" on DVD as the cast is good (sean Penn, Anthony hopkins etc) but at 10% and reading the reviews it's one to be avoided me thinks.

Karl Hungus

BAZM8 wrote:

I presume i'm preaching to the choir here but there maybe some out there who haven't heard of this site.

Yep, it's in the "Film Resources" sticky.

Great site though.

Sad Professor

It's a good website alright but I don't put too much fate in it's ratings. The scores are based on how many people loved/hated the film which is overly simplistic imo. They make a lot of mistakes too, misinterpreting a good review as rotten, etc which can tip the balance significantly. So the films with the broadest appeal do best.

johnny_ultimate

It's not perfect, but it is the closest thing you can usually get to a definitive opinion on a film (well except maybe imdb). Its very, very rare that I disagree with RT (except for maybe on their 98% Casino Royale score )
Plus I really like their news coverage - a nice mix between information and nerdiness - like a more accessiable AICN.
And the forums are always fun to browse for a laugh.

cailinoBAC

I love this site. I think it is pretty accurate as a gauge of how films are reviewed in the US, even if it is a bit simplistic at times. But for newer release films you have up to 90 reviews so you get a good idea overall, even if there are a few mistakes. Not that you always agree. It´s interesting sometimes comparing the reivews to how films are reviewed here.

Or also, for seeing through press blurbs. I remember reading about how Samantha Mumba was getting rave reviews for her performance in The Time Machine, but a quick look at RT and you could see it wasn´t so.

koneko

johnny_ultimate wrote:

(except for maybe on their 98% Casino Royale score )

What the hell, that movie was awful.

Americans seemed to like it. I really don't get it.

johnny_ultimate

koneko wrote:

What the hell, that movie was awful.

Americans seemed to like it. I really don't get it.

Finally! Someone who sees sense over the nonsense that was Casino Royale. Everyone else seems to think it was the greatest thing to happen to cinema ever.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

casino royale was the first watcheable bond flick
there, I said it.

although I do prefer the '67 version with david niven

Karl Hungus

Casino Royale has to be taken in the context of the Bond series though. It's the fact that Bond had become so clichéd and kitsch that the made latest film a triumph in that it had just done away with all the sillyness and brought a much more serious and gritty style.

Best Bond since Liscence To Kill tbh.

johnny_ultimate

Karl Hungus wrote:

Casino Royale has to be taken in the context of the Bond series though. It's the fact that Bond had become so clichéd and kitsch that the made latest film a triumph in that it had just done away with all the sillyness and brought a much more serious and gritty style.

Best Bond since Liscence To Kill tbh.

Yes, but all notes of seriousness and gritiness were undermined by one thing:

A... Sinking.... House

. Nearly as bad as the surfing scene in Die Another Day (well, not really).